OBJECTIVE: To incorporate a new trial design to examine clinical response, cytokine expression and joint imaging in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) switching from etanercept to infliximab treatment. METHODS: A randomised, open-label, clinical trial of 28 patients with an inadequate response toetanercept was conducted. Eligible patients received background methotrexate and were randomised 1:1 to discontinue etanercept and receive infliximab 3 mg/kg at weeks 0, 2, 6, 14 and 22, or to continue etanercept 25 mg twice weekly. Data were analysed for clinical response, serum biomarker levels, radiographic progression, MRI and adverse events. RESULTS: At week 16, 62% of infliximab-treated patients achieved American College of Rheumatology 20% criteria for improvement in RA (ACR20) responses compared with 29% of etanercept-treated patients. A 30.8% decrease from baseline in Disease Activity Score 28 was observed in patients receiving infliximab, compared with a 16.0% decrease in patients receiving etanercept. ACR20 and American College of Rheumatology 50% criteria for improvement in RA responses correlated at least minimally with intracellular adhesion molecule-1 and interleukin 8 in patients receiving infliximab. 38% of patients who were switched to infliximab showed reductions in Health Assessment Questionnaire scores (>0.4), compared with 0% of patients receiving etanercept. MRI analyses were inconclusive. Both drugs were well tolerated; 54% of infliximab-treated patients and 50% of etanercept-treated patients reported adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: In this exploratory, open-label trial (with single-blind evaluator), patients were randomised to continue with etanercept or switch to infliximab. The small sample size of this hypothesis-generating study was underpowered to show statistical differences between groups. There was a numerical trend favouring patients who switched to infliximab, therefore warranting further study with a more rigorous design.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE: To incorporate a new trial design to examine clinical response, cytokine expression and joint imaging in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) switching from etanercept to infliximab treatment. METHODS: A randomised, open-label, clinical trial of 28 patients with an inadequate response to etanercept was conducted. Eligible patients received background methotrexate and were randomised 1:1 to discontinue etanercept and receive infliximab 3 mg/kg at weeks 0, 2, 6, 14 and 22, or to continue etanercept 25 mg twice weekly. Data were analysed for clinical response, serum biomarker levels, radiographic progression, MRI and adverse events. RESULTS: At week 16, 62% of infliximab-treated patients achieved American College of Rheumatology 20% criteria for improvement in RA (ACR20) responses compared with 29% of etanercept-treated patients. A 30.8% decrease from baseline in Disease Activity Score 28 was observed in patients receiving infliximab, compared with a 16.0% decrease in patients receiving etanercept. ACR20 and American College of Rheumatology 50% criteria for improvement in RA responses correlated at least minimally with intracellular adhesion molecule-1 and interleukin 8 in patients receiving infliximab. 38% of patients who were switched to infliximab showed reductions in Health Assessment Questionnaire scores (>0.4), compared with 0% of patients receiving etanercept. MRI analyses were inconclusive. Both drugs were well tolerated; 54% of infliximab-treated patients and 50% of etanercept-treated patients reported adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: In this exploratory, open-label trial (with single-blind evaluator), patients were randomised to continue with etanercept or switch to infliximab. The small sample size of this hypothesis-generating study was underpowered to show statistical differences between groups. There was a numerical trend favouring patients who switched to infliximab, therefore warranting further study with a more rigorous design.
Authors: J M Bathon; R W Martin; R M Fleischmann; J R Tesser; M H Schiff; E C Keystone; M C Genovese; M C Wasko; L W Moreland; A L Weaver; J Markenson; B K Finck Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2000-11-30 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: P E Lipsky; D M van der Heijde; E W St Clair; D E Furst; F C Breedveld; J R Kalden; J S Smolen; M Weisman; P Emery; M Feldmann; G R Harriman; R N Maini Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2000-11-30 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: R M Fleischmann; S B Cohen; L W Moreland; M Schiff; P J Mease; D B Smith; G Keenan; J M Kremer Journal: Curr Med Res Opin Date: 2005-08 Impact factor: 2.580
Authors: Marcel D Posthumus; Pieter C Limburg; Johanna Westra; Miek A van Leeuwen; Martin H van Rijswijk Journal: J Rheumatol Date: 2002-05 Impact factor: 4.666
Authors: Sudha Visvanathan; Joseph C Marini; Josef S Smolen; E William St Clair; Charles Pritchard; William Shergy; Charles Pendley; Daniel Baker; Mohan Bala; Timothy Gathany; John Han; Carrie Wagner Journal: J Rheumatol Date: 2007-06-01 Impact factor: 4.666
Authors: M E Weinblatt; J M Kremer; A D Bankhurst; K J Bulpitt; R M Fleischmann; R I Fox; C G Jackson; M Lange; D J Burge Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 1999-01-28 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Anthony S Russell; Wojtek P Olszynski; K S Davison; Cheryl Koehn; Boulos Haraoui Journal: Clin Rheumatol Date: 2009-12-29 Impact factor: 2.980
Authors: A Finckh; A Ciurea; L Brulhart; B Möller; U A Walker; D Courvoisier; D Kyburz; J Dudler; C Gabay Journal: Ann Rheum Dis Date: 2009-05-04 Impact factor: 19.103